A Year of Condemnation: Examining the House's Record-Breaking Session
This past year in the U.S. House has entered the history books. Legislators set new marks for the lengthiest continuous address and the longest vote, and managed the lengthiest government shutdown.
They also spent considerable energy trying to reprimand each other through formal condemnation measures, the body's formal procedure for rebuke. A search of official proceedings reveals at least 17 attempts since the year's beginning to formally disapprove of a member via a censure or a simpler statement of disapproval.
When a condemnation measure passes by a simple majority of the House, the subject of the resolution has to rise before the House dais as the chair announces to them that they have been punished for their misconduct. This constitutes the actual penalties – they retain their seat and their right to vote, but potentially damaging their public image.
Despite the fact that most of these gained approval, the flurry grew so intense that by the end of the year, a group of lawmakers from both parties introduced a bill to modify the standing orders to create a higher bar for reprimands to be approved. “How about we stop the mutual recrimination in the House?” questioned one of the bill's sponsors.
Below is an examination at the alleged misdeeds at the core of the flood of condemnation attempts:
Labeling a Person a ‘Derogatory Term’
The earliest censure attempt of the year occurred during February targeting a Democratic lawmaker. The measure charged the member of “inciting violence against a specific federal appointee”. It pointed to an instance during a panel session where the lawmaker made a derogatory comment about the figure in a particularly creative way, as well as a later statement about bringing “actual weapons” to a partisan battle. The chamber did not end up holding a vote on the resolution.
Shouting at the President
While giving a speech to a joint session of Congress, a member of the opposition lawmaker disrupted the nation's leader, yelling “the people did not grant him authority” while pumping a cane in the air. The presiding officer directed that the congressperson taken from the chamber. Subsequently, several reprimand motions were introduced targeting him. Shortly thereafter, the legislature voted for one of these measures, with a number of members of the representative's party voting in favor alongside the other side. This remains the only censure to actually win approval during the year.
Resorting to Ethnic Tropes
A mere few days after the previous censure, a measure was proposed aiming at a lawmaker for remarks made about the disruptive colleague. The resolution accused the member of using language that was “disparaging, derogatory, and racist toward another colleague”. This proposal was not a full chamber vote.
Disparaging a State Executive's Mobility Aid
A further reprimand effort centered on supposed derogatory comments made by a representative about a governor who uses a wheelchair. The nicknames were deemed deeply disrespectful and resulted in a formal condemnation that also was not brought to a vote.
Altercation with Immigration Authorities
A number of reprimand proposals were introduced against a representative after she was arrested and charged following an confrontation outside a government holding center. One of these measures was considered in the chamber, but was defeated thanks to a combination of lawmakers from the other side and a few of legislators from the sponsor's own party. This marked the first of several times where lawmakers crossed party lines to stop a reprimand motion.
Allegations of Discrimination
A lawmaker was the subject of two censure resolutions over the summer for bigoted remarks made about political leaders of color. The statements included insulting labels and calls for removal from the country. None of these measures was brought to the floor.
Disparaging a Individual's Legacy
In the wake of a prominent individual's death, a reprimand proposal was proposed against a representative for comments that were deemed “derogatory” toward the late person and those mourning him. For another time, the measure was blocked with the assistance of a handful of representatives from the party that introduced it. One of those who voted against the censure remarked that the proper response to “objectionable comments” is not censorship, but “more speech”.
‘Compromising the Process of a Free and Fair Election’
The flurry of reprimands peaked late in the year when, amid a key government funding vote, a congresswoman spoke publicly to claim that a fellow Democrat had planned his departure in a manner to ensure a chosen replacement would be chosen to fill his seat. The disapproval motion registered dissent of this behavior for “subverting the system of a free and fair election”. This motion generated controversy but ultimately passed, with backing from most the minority party and a significant number of members from the alleging member's party.
Exchanging Messages with a Notorious Figure
As a bill to mandate the publication of government-held files related to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was nearing passage, news broke that a lawmaker had been in text communication with Epstein while attending a 2019 hearing. Capitalizing on the situation, political opponents members proposed a censure resolution against the member. This attempt failed thanks to united opposition from the delegate's political allies and the defections of a few of lawmakers from the sponsoring party.
A Broad Spectrum of Alleged Misdeeds
One representative was the focus of three separate condemnation motions throughout the year, which resulted in {allegations|claims
